User talk:Sherwood Creek
Regarding your portrait, it hasn't been started yet. Please understand that, in addition to college classes, I'm also currently undertaking a corporate rebranding project, part of a not-for-profit video game sound project, painting a high-quality custom print design for my sister's birthday, am actively searching for a part-time job, and am on the precipice of filing a small claim in court. I apologize for the... unprofessionalism... of an indefinite publish date on the piece you commissioned, and appreciate your patience. Know that I would understand if at any point before I start the project you got tired of waiting and wanted to cancel the order; given that, I will tell you when I begin it (via e-mail, if you left me one, which I think you did). Otherwise, thank you for understanding. SsVivid (talk) 16:59, September 21, 2012 (UTC) The issue with that category is that it's so specific that few to no other characters will ever need to use it, and many of the ones that do will not really apply (see: people misusing "in-character history" for their bios instead of history articles). Because of that, keeping it as a category is spammy, inefficient, and does not assist anyone with navigation of the website (which is the point of having categories). What would be more appropriate for such a character is to see if any more broad and overarching categories apply to how you're trying to group him - such as "Commander" or "Knight" - which already exist on this wiki. If none of those are effective, it would be appropriate to create a new category that is equally as broad, such as "Military" or "Officer" or the like which you know already applies to many other already-existing articles/characters and can be used flexibly. That is to say, it is good to create new categories that will group together related articles which are not already related under another category. (For example, it would not be good to create "Black Knights" if "Kinshra" already exists, but it would be good to create "Knights" in addition to "Kinshra" to group black knights with other knights which are not necessarily "black." Knights, after all, are a very common type of character.) Making categories for types of characters and articles that there are already several examples of is good (like "Knights" and "Military"), and making categories for types of articles that you know there will be lots of applicable articles for (like "characters" and "organizations" and "vampyres" and "plots"/"plotlines"). In contrast, making categories that are specific to a small subset of a broader category just on the speculation that there might some day be more applicable articles is not a good practice and will leave us with a wiki full of categories with only one or two linked articles in them. Hope that cleared up the do's and don't's. SsVivid (talk) 18:35, October 11, 2012 (UTC) Good man, Dion had no reason to be banned. 21:56, April 18, 2013 (UTC)The Beard of Alrekr (talk) Did the Church of Saradomin donate Mithril to the Lionheart family? Lord Kisin (talk) 21:18, May 25, 2013 (UTC) Not at all. Got for it! Trydgis (talk) 01:22, May 29, 2013 (UTC) Warning. You have violated our policy about Non-wiki conflict. Further infractions may result in your account being banned. To read about our policies, read this page. Jagex named me Able Tis (talk) 21:41, June 17, 2013 (UTC) Do not delete warnings left for you. Jagex named me Able Tis (talk) 21:49, June 17, 2013 (UTC) Howdy, Sherwood. I'm just stopping by to request that you let Dion know that I'm free to chat on RS at any time I'm online. All he has to do is message me and let me know he's available. Thank you, and have a pleasant day. Jovani du Gore (talk) 17:27, July 6, 2013 (UTC) Sherwood, cool it! I removed your post on the Stemouregal Rex page due to unneeded tension in your post. It's role-play. His character is free to do anything he wants to do, regardless of whether or not the player OOC is well aware of the circumstances. If his character BELIEVES he can beat The Order of St. Rimmington's Sarothic Church, then his character is free to do so. Any OOC matters or disputes involving clan activities or between characters or the legitimacy of things are not what this wiki is for and should be resolved in-game. Jimcest (talk) 15:05, December 11, 2013 (UTC) Alright, I hadn't seen that post of his on the wiki, so I do apologise for that. If that is the case, feel free to direct me to it (if it happens to be a comment on a page) and I'll happily remove it. Based on what I said previously - discussion about such matters on user talk pages is fine, so long as the policies of the wiki are followed. Any other issues, let me know. Jimcest (talk) 16:48, December 11, 2013 (UTC)